Adrianus wrote:he stepped forward [he revealed himself by moving forward] saying, that he [hoc] this man] was ['is' but Vulgate reported speech] a chosen apostle sent by the Lord to do his works
why is 'hoc', the neuter form, used where a specific man is indicated? why not 'hic'?
Cur â€˜hocâ€™, forma neutri verbi, usum est, siquidem peculiaris vir indicatus sit? Cur non â€˜hicâ€™ usus est?
Could it be that the phrase attempts a definition of the term 'Vocatus Apostolus', by saying "A called apostle is this: (it is) a man who has been sent by the Lord to do his works"?
Nonne sit forsitan uti haec enuntiatio conata sit ad appellationem â€˜Vocatus Apostolusâ€™ definiendam, dicendo â€˜Hoc est â€˜Vocatus Apolostusâ€™: est ille qui a Domino missus est ad res ejus agendas.
The whole sentence would then be:
Ergo tota sententia sit ita:
'A called apostle' [the term to be defined]. Because he knew God, and said so, having become His good/suitable servant, he revealed himself, saying: 'A called apostle is this: (it is) a man who has been sent by the Lord to do his works'.
'Vocatus Apostolus' [verbum quod definiendum est]. Propter quod Deum cognovit et fatetur, factus idoneus servus, promotum se ostendit dicens: Vocatus apostolus, hoc est: est ille qui est a Domino missus ad res Ejus agendas.